|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/4/2008 11:28:50 PM
|
|
|
Dan94
Posts: 51
Joined: 9/25/2008
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
|
The question: If I understand the question correctly. If a man before the advent of Christ, found only the old testament while on an island or in a prison cell,...could he be saved?
Well finding a bull, goat, or sheep might be hard to come by, but obeying the Sabbath would probably be easy.
Seriously I expect to find thousands, maybe millions, maybe 100's of millions of old testament saints in heaven. God is gracious, loving and kind and would not hold anything against someone not knowing a better way, having never had a chance to know a better way.
Now if a man (in present day)on an island or prison cell found a copy of only the old testament and had all the instruments of righteousness listed in the 10 commandments, which mentions nothing about blood offerings or guilt offerings etc. sure God is just. I believe personally that he could see the face of Jesus.
But really I think that somehow the man (in present day, with nothing but the OT) would find a NT float in on the tide or slipped through the bars because we serve a wonderful God who would want to make sure the man knew about the true sacrificial Lamb of God.
Dan94
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/4/2008 11:41:18 PM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1884
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
If a man found the OT on his island and obeyed all the laws as laid out but didn't have the faith to believe God...he would be dead as a mackerel. The law has never saved anyone; just ask the first generation Hebrews of whom God said... they would never enter His rest.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/5/2008 1:58:22 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1413
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bob97
If a man found the OT on his island and obeyed all the laws as laid out but didn't have the faith to believe God...he would be dead as a mackerel. The law has never saved anyone; just ask the first generation Hebrews of whom God said... they would never enter His rest.
Bob
You know how "in the law camp" some believe I am, so I hope you appreciate my view that the creator was talking of the promised land,when He said, they would never enter His rest. I think your first sentence would be correct if faith in the Creator were not one of the commandments. Just as the man with only the Apistolic Writings would be, even if he did everything written in it, apart from faith in the Creator.
Dan94, I would tend to agree regarding the Creator's graciousness. In fact, I would hope the Creator would also provide the Scriptures written before the incarnation of the Messiah, even if the Gideons would not, so he would understand what a sacraficial lamb is. By the way, where is the book of Gideon in that "pocket testiment" they like to hand out.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 10/5/2008 2:07:47 AM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/5/2008 4:03:32 AM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 1413
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
... In regard to salvation, circumcision is nothing. I believe that is what Paul is telling us.
But that's not all Paul is telling us. We know that Paul is also calling circumcision a big nothing in it's formerly commanded use as "the sign of the covenant between (God) and (Abraham)" and his descendants (Genesis 17:11). How do we know that? Because Paul says, "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." (Gal. 6:15).
We know Paul can not be saying, "circumcision or uncircumcision counts nothing towards salvation, but being a new creation does" because he teaches that salvation is by faith, apart from works. Paul is saying to them that the matter of circumcision means nothing at being proof and confirmation of being in covenant with God. Being a new creation is the confirmation, the sign of being in covenant with God.
I believe, when Paul uses the term "new creation" he is talking about salvation, just as the Messiah did with "born again". Being a new creation is not a work but a state of being by grace through faith. So, we need to determine what exemplifies a new creation.
quote:
If you claim nothing has changed in what God commands, you have the burden of explaining why Paul tells the Galatians, who have been declared righteous by faith (Gal. 3:2) just as Abraham was (Genesis 15:6), that they should not be circumcised as Abraham and his descendants were commanded to be as a sign of the covenant:
"9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner-those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant." (Genesis 17:9-14)
The issue Paul is talking about throughout his writings is what he was directed to talk about by the Jerusalem Council. We see the issue in Acts 15:1. "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.'" He was talking about being circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, not as the Creator directed Abraham. Nowhere do we find a custom taught by Moses, in fact Moses did not even circumcise his own son. Therefore, these are customs derived from interpretations or they were just using Moses name fraudulantly.
However, looking at this passage, why would the Creator call something an everlasting covenant, if He intended to end it?
quote:
...why does Paul want to rob the Galatians of this supposed benefit and relegate them (as some believe) to dwelling outside of the gates of Jerusalem in the Millenium with the dogs (Rev. 22:15)?
He doesn't
quote:
Animal sacrifice for sin is the other big 'change' that proves we are not under the literal requirements of worship of the old covenant anymore. The Levitical priesthood was the basis for the law (Heb. 7:11). But now that there has been a change in the priesthood, there has also been a change in the law (Heb. 7:12). The commands on how to worship God under the Levitical priesthood have changed because we have a new priesthood, not because the Temple is gone (for Hebrews was written while it was still standing). We learn much from Paul how that worship has changed, and not just in regard to the sacrifices, but in regard to the activities connected with those sacrifices (Lev. 23:37).
First, the part of Hebrews 7:11 you are refering to is in parenthesis indicating that it is not in some manuscripts. Second, it could be translated, for by it the people recieved the law. So, the purpose of the priesthood was for instruction. In verse 12, we see the laws of the preisthood as we understood it, not the whole law, was exchanged for laws that included a Priest that could not only instruct but save. Now, this is not a violation of the previous laws but an addendum if you will. It is not a violation, because the Messiah never entered the Holy Place of the earthly Tabernacle, but entered The Holy of Holies in Heaven, of which the Temple is just an illustration. Therefore, there need not be a doing away with the previous law, though Paul does imply the old(priesthood) will pass away. This could be because of the distruction of the temple or maybe The Messiah will be the only priest in His Temple. Either way that does not effect the laws we can observe now, since there is no Temple at this time.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
If I may quote The Messiah. Mt 23:23 "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
This appears to say that firstfruits tithes are to be done in addition to "the more important matters".
Jesus said this while the law was in complete authority. The point of contention is what happened to the law after the resurrection when the new covenant spoken about by the prophets was instituted as evidenced by the complete forgiveness of sins and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in accordance with those prophecies.
I do not believe in a partial forgiveness of sins. Either they are all forgiven or it doesn't matter. Also, John tells us that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth and Paul tells us that those He forknew He also predestined to be conformed to His image. Therefore, the salvation of those who lived in the times before the death of the Messiah was just as sure as ours is today. Also, I believe, the Spirit of the Creator has always been available. Now, there definitely was an outpouring of that Spirit on the multitudes from all over the world who were in Jerusalem for the feast of weeks, but nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that the Spirit of the Creator was not available throughout time.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
Rom 4:9b-10 We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.
So, we see Abraham knew he was accepted by the Creator, even though he was not circumcised.
I asked you to show me where we can know that Abraham himself knew he did not really have to be circumcised to continue in the covenant with God, essentially defending your argument that it's been understood as optional all along, and that no change is represented in Paul's teaching. God plainly told him that anyone who did not comply literally would be cutoff from the covenant. Can you prove from the Bible that Abraham understood circumcision as a big nothing (as Paul says), and that we have understood all along that circumcision never really had any ties to continuing in the covenant?
As stated above, faith was credited to him as righteousness, here Paul is refering to Gen 15:6. Circumcision isn't even mentioned until Chpt 17. Therefore, Abram knew he was saved without circumcision. Also, as you quoted, the Scriptures say, "cut off from his people" not "cutoff from the covenant". One refers to social interaction and the other to salvation.
quote:
If this was revelation that had been around from the beginning, Paul would not speak of his ministry as representing the knowledge and power of faith that was only now being revealed to the world in the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Instead, Paul would have been preaching circumcision as a requirement for the people of God just as it was taught in the OT with no condition of faith attached.
There are a lot of things that the record of Paul's ministry does not discuss. However, that does not mean he had no an opinion on those things. What is recorded is what was important at the time. I do believe Paul spoke of the knowledge and power of faith that has been revealed through the Spirit of the Creator. The concept of circumcision of the heart was revealed to Paul in Deut 30:6 "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." Also, as I have stated before when we were talking about the sacrifices, the prophets tell us that a contrite heart is more important than sacrifice. So, we see that Abram, Moses and the Prophets knew about salvation by grace through faith. What Paul does is take this great cloud of witnesses, combines their testimonies with those of the Messiah and His disciples and provides us with logical arguments supporting this concept that the Creator has saught to impart to us throughout the ages.
quote:
Then what things do confirm one's faith? The OT says circumcision and Sabbath keeping were signs of being in covenant with God. Surely you must agree with this. The NT narrows those signs down to a single more specific standard by which we can identify saving faith in a person and nullifies the literal signs given in the OT. Things do change. The present covenant is not the same as the previous covenant.
I don't believe confirmation is a biblical concept. The Creator needs no confirmation, for it is He who imparted the faith by His grace. Confirmation before men is futile, as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man shows us. If the Creator grants them faith they believe, if not they don't. We can not be sure. We only have signs as discussed above. What are those signs, there are many, but John tells us:
1Jo 3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
How do we know what it means to love one's brother. John tells us that also.
1Jo 5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
His commands can't be just to love our brother, that would be circular reasoning. Fortunately, John made clear what "carrying out his commands" means earlier in his letter.
1 John 2:3-6 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
As you pointed out earlier, the Messiah walked "while the law was in complete authority", though I would never have put it that way. The Creator has always had complete authority. The written word is just a finite illustration of the true word he tells us to obey in verse 5. At the time John wrote this letter, only the Scriptures written before the incarnation of the Messiah(old testiment) were considered by all to be Scripture. The historical accounts of the Messiah and His disciples, and the letters, were still being complied and circulated. Paul's letters derived their authority from the Jerusalem council.
< Message edited by Bluethread -- 10/5/2008 4:25:56 AM >
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/5/2008 8:33:58 AM
|
|
|
Dan94
Posts: 51
Joined: 9/25/2008
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
|
To All
My faith is simple, I regard my faith as one appointed by God in due season. Does that mean I do not expect my faith to grow? God forbid I would ever entertain that thought or take comfort in it. But I continue on in the the deep expectation that "He that began a good work in you, will be faithful to complete it" I as a 53 year old man am very content to crawl up on the lap of Jesus (just as one of those little children whom the disciples tried to shoo away) and look into the perfect face that bears the promise of that truth.
I do not enjoy to argue with other believers, loving debate is fine and a warm hug or a hand shake after such debate is expected. This is what I've experienced in the Thursday night men's group I attend at my church. We don't always see face to face, but always see heart to heart because He that mends our hearts is always present. Hence when we gather together, we gather in His name not the name our church. We literally take hold of the passage "where 2 or more are gathered together in My name, there I will be among them".
When I quote a passage, sometimes I may not get it right or word for word, but through Gods grace and indwelling presence I hope to get across the spiritual power that makes the verse come alive in my heart. When we in our group meet and we discuss the Word or wives or children or jobs or life situations, we build each other up.
In this forum I hope the intent is the same, that if we were all in one room and see each others faces, that even if we did not see eye to eye on every issue, that the deep brotherly love would over shadow us. That as iron sharpens iron we would grow and be shaped into a vessel of honor as God intends.
So that being said, I hope you can all see my exposed heart as I conclude with this. If a brother feels more comfortable practicing elements of the Law, I will still Love him and respect his convictions even if I do not understand all that's involved. I have a good Jewish brother who is a preacher of Christ to his lost Jewish brothers and sisters. I have attended his Saturday services and still help financially support him when I can. I love this man and his family and understand why he still practices the traditions of his forefathers. I have enjoyed the deep tradition of a Passover meal with them (God is so Holy..So great..so awesome). But he has never judged or indicated as any form of weakness when I do not practice by physical actions, the Law as written. But "loving the Lord my God with all my heart and my neighbor as myself" is indeed the fulfillment of the whole Law. When I attend his services, it is to share the love of brother and share understandings. And if there is a Jewish brother or Gentile brother next to me, we are one in Christ, fulfilling the requirements of the whole Law as we come together and worship. No thoughts of denominational practice's need be brought up or looked down upon.
I believe when we come together here in this forum, we mean to build each other up. But requiring complex rules and regulations gives cause sometime to beat a brother up because he forgot to dot an i or cross a t and that tends to make us forget we are to be knit together in the Spirit of love. Not the letter of the law.
Dan94
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/5/2008 9:59:38 AM
|
|
|
bob97
Posts: 1884
Joined: 6/24/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe when we come together here in this forum, we mean to build each other up. But requiring complex rules and regulations gives cause sometime to beat a brother up because he forgot to dot an i or cross a t and that tends to make us forget we are to be knit together in the Spirit of love. Not the letter of the law.
You can only be beaten up if your pride allows it. If spelling and grammar were what kept me on this form...I would have been gone long ago!
I condemn no man for his style of worship or understanding of God's word. My purpose of discussion on this form is to learn and grow but I will defend my position until that position changes or the discussion becomes hopeless in nature. An example of this is the Calvinism/Arminianism discussion.
Bob
_____________________________
The LORD clears the road for me!
The LORD is my high ridge, my stronghold, my deliverer!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 11:58:28 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dan94
The question: If I understand the question correctly. If a man before the advent of Christ, found only the old testament while on an island or in a prison cell,...could he be saved?
Well finding a bull, goat, or sheep might be hard to come by, but obeying the Sabbath would probably be easy.
Seriously I expect to find thousands, maybe millions, maybe 100's of millions of old testament saints in heaven. God is gracious, loving and kind and would not hold anything against someone not knowing a better way, having never had a chance to know a better way.
Now if a man (in present day)on an island or prison cell found a copy of only the old testament and had all the instruments of righteousness listed in the 10 commandments, which mentions nothing about blood offerings or guilt offerings etc. sure God is just. I believe personally that he could see the face of Jesus.
But really I think that somehow the man (in present day, with nothing but the OT) would find a NT float in on the tide or slipped through the bars because we serve a wonderful God who would want to make sure the man knew about the true sacrificial Lamb of God.
Dan94
Would need to have the faith factor going on. Or would as Bob put it being looking outside, trying to get in.
Well Bob didn't say that quite like that. But I hope close to it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 12:14:40 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I have said many times that it is not necessary to fully understand and/or do any of the Scriptures for salvation. All one needs is that simple faith The Creator provides by grace. Of course, included in that is the understanding that The Creator is not any of the other gods. That said, once one is saved, how should we then live? If our faith is in The Creator and we trust that He will provide, shouldn't we also trust that what He tells us to do is what is best? I am not denighing salvation to those who do not "Keep The Law". It is others who are doing so based entirely on when one happens to be born. If one believes one is living an acceptable lifestyle, do you believe The Creator would have rejected such an one for living the same lifestyle 2100 years ago? On what basis would The Creator set up such a double standard?
It is not a double standard as you seem to think it appears as. In the garden where the story of mankind starts. We have God (Lord Jesus Christ) saying to Eve and Adam. " You shall not eat of the tree of knowledge for in which the day you do. You shall surely die." Now this is what God layed out for them in the garden. Either they could put trust (faith) his words or put trust(faith)in the evil one's words. Well we know how the story turned out. Man did not put trust(faith) in their creator words. So has become a issue with God is that we need to put trust(faith) him in what he says for us. As you can see in the stories throughout the OT where human's would not put trust (faith) him at his words that he spoke of.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/6/2008 8:34:50 PM
|
|
|
SpongeBlog
Posts: 1006
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
ORIGINAL: SpongeBlog
...We know Paul can not be saying, "circumcision or uncircumcision counts nothing towards salvation, but being a new creation does" because he teaches that salvation is by faith, apart from works. Paul is saying to them that the matter of circumcision means nothing at being proof and confirmation of being in covenant with God. Being a new creation is the confirmation, the sign of being in covenant with God.
I believe, when Paul uses the term "new creation" he is talking about salvation, just as the Messiah did with "born again". Being a new creation is not a work but a state of being by grace through faith. So, we need to determine what exemplifies a new creation.
That is exactly what Paul wants us to understand. Being a new creation is a state of being. And that state of being is measured by the works of godly love, not externals that count for nothing like circumcision (how is your heart changed by circumcision? How does it prove you have a new heart?), even though God plainly commanded them to be performed in the previous covenant (we now know that was for purposes of illustration).
And we know exactly what being a new creation means:
" 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." (Galatians 5:6)
" 15Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation." (Galatians 6:16)
Being a new creation means having a faith that finds expression in acts of godly love. Love is the evidence of the presence of the new creation, not circumcision. This is what counts above outward circumcision. So much so that Paul tells the Galatians not to do it.
Jews have taken false comfort in the security of literal circumcision and have relied on that work of the law/ flesh for confirmation of being in covenant with God. And they insisted that the Gentiles must also conform that way, too. And with good reason. It's directly commanded in the law. But we see through Paul's teaching that it was only an illustration of the greater truth of spiritual circumcision which now makes the literal obsolete, just as the illustration of the Levitical system was made obsolete and laid aside (discarded) in favor of the greater truth of Christ's sacrifice.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
The issue Paul is talking about throughout his writings is what he was directed to talk about by the Jerusalem Council. We see the issue in Acts 15:1. "Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: 'Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.'" He was talking about being circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, not as the Creator directed Abraham. Nowhere do we find a custom taught by Moses, in fact Moses did not even circumcise his own son. Therefore, these are customs derived from interpretations or they were just using Moses name fraudulantly.
There is no honest reason to think that "The law of Moses" does not mean 'the law of Moses' in Acts 15 as he received it from God and wrote it down. I don't think it's fair to redefine the meaning of something that is otherwise self explanatory in order to create a defense for a doctrine. It's funny to see law get redefined to mean rabbinal law by some, and then when the NT is specific about what law, it still isn't accepted as the law of Moses.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
However, looking at this passage, why would the Creator call something an everlasting covenant, if He intended to end it?
Ask Eli. His buffoonary is what caused God to end the 'everlasting' covenant with Levi. This might be a stumbling block to some, but we know the 'everlasting' gets it's fulfillment in the true spiritual fulfillment God intended all along.
Circumcision of the heart really is a distinct 'mark in the flesh', peculiar to the people of God that fulfills the requirement of the law. There's something missing in the flesh of every Spirit sealed believer--the evil deeds of our old nature. Largely personal, like literal circumcision, but quite obvious when visible.
Christ's sacrifice is a bigger stretch to accept as the legitimate fulfillment of the law of animal sacrifice for sin than spiritual circumcision is for literal circumcision, yet we both know it fully and legitimately fulfills that requirement of the covenant. I've been saying this over and over now--the law does not have to be fulfilled to the letter of the law (meaning the personal variation that most law keepers defend) in order for the law to be fulfilled properly. We have direct and irrefutable proof of this in the acceptable sacrifice of Christ in place of animals.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
...why does Paul want to rob the Galatians of this supposed benefit and relegate them (as some believe) to dwelling outside of the gates of Jerusalem in the Millenium with the dogs (Rev. 22:15)?
He doesn't
He's plainly telling them not to be circumcised as required under the law. People in your camp say circumcision is part of 'keeping God's commands', and some say that disobedience to an OT command will keep a person outside of the New Jerusalem. Paul obviously doesn't believe that.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Animal sacrifice for sin is the other big 'change' that proves we are not under the literal requirements of worship of the old covenant anymore. The Levitical priesthood was the basis for the law (Heb. 7:11). But now that there has been a change in the priesthood, there has also been a change in the law (Heb. 7:12). The commands on how to worship God under the Levitical priesthood have changed because we have a new priesthood, not because the Temple is gone (for Hebrews was written while it was still standing). We learn much from Paul how that worship has changed, and not just in regard to the sacrifices, but in regard to the activities connected with those sacrifices (Lev. 23:37).
First, the part of Hebrews 7:11 you are refering to is in parenthesis indicating that it is not in some manuscripts.
I don't know, I've never checked it out. But I am aware of this convenient argument about paranthesis's. Throughout my Bible reading I have come to the conclusion that it's unfair to assume that everything in paranthesis means categorically that it isn't in all translations. There are places where it seems there is no reason whatsoever to suspect those were added in later, but are just appropriate grammatical tools (I use them alot). Like when Paul tells the Phillipians(?) that he can't remember baptising anyone outside of who he is telling them he knows he baptised.
I would have to investigate it more to share anything beyond what I just have. All it will take is one scripture that essentially says the same thing but which is not in parenthesis. The Exodus passage says essentially the same thing, but it is in parenthesis in my Bible.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Second, it could be translated, for by it the people recieved the law. So, the purpose of the priesthood was for instruction. In verse 12, we see the laws of the preisthood as we understood it, not the whole law, was exchanged for laws that included a Priest that could not only instruct but save. Now, this is not a violation of the previous laws but an addendum if you will. It is not a violation, because the Messiah never entered the Holy Place of the earthly Tabernacle, but entered The Holy of Holies in Heaven, of which the Temple is just an illustration. Therefore, there need not be a doing away with the previous law, though Paul does imply the old(priesthood) will pass away. This could be because of the distruction of the temple or maybe The Messiah will be the only priest in His Temple. Either way that does not effect the laws we can observe now, since there is no Temple at this time.
I don't think it matters all too much. The point is vs. 12. He's making the connection between an obsolete system of sacrifice and the law that accompanied that system, and how one must change with the other. See, the law can, and has changed. God's not speaking the same things today as he was then.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
...The point of contention is what happened to the law after the resurrection when the new covenant spoken about by the prophets was instituted as evidenced by the complete forgiveness of sins and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit in accordance with those prophecies.
I do not believe in a partial forgiveness of sins. Either they are all forgiven or it doesn't matter.
The law did not make provision for the forgiveness of all sins. Some were unforgivable. But those unforgivable ones under the law are forgivable apart from the law through the grace of God we have now fully disclosed in Jesus Christ.
"38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:38-39)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Also, John tells us that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth and Paul tells us that those He forknew He also predestined to be conformed to His image. Therefore, the salvation of those who lived in the times before the death of the Messiah was just as sure as ours is today.
I'm not sure what the surety of God's promise to conform us to the image of Christ means to this part of the discussion. One day we will be like him, when we see him--promise. Everyone who has been chosen has a predetermined destiny. And that is to look like Jesus. Hallelujah!
"2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure." (1 John 3:2-3)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Also, I believe, the Spirit of the Creator has always been available. Now, there definitely was an outpouring of that Spirit on the multitudes from all over the world who were in Jerusalem for the feast of weeks, but nowhere in the Scriptures does it say that the Spirit of the Creator was not available throughout time.
The Holy Spirit abides in the New Covenant. You could only have it as long as you obeyed in the Old Covenant (true in another aspect in the New Covenent). What you say destroys the significance of the new role of the Holy Spirit in this New Covenant as if there is no change whatsoever between life as a believer now and life then under the law. You destroy the gospel message. Serving God according to the law is not the gospel message.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
I asked you to show me where we can know that Abraham himself knew he did not really have to be circumcised to continue in the covenant with God, essentially defending your argument that it's been understood as optional all along, and that no change is represented in Paul's teaching. God plainly told him that anyone who did not comply literally would be cutoff from the covenant. Can you prove from the Bible that Abraham understood circumcision as a big nothing (as Paul says), and that we have understood all along that circumcision never really had any ties to continuing in the covenant?
As stated above, faith was credited to him as righteousness, here Paul is refering to Gen 15:6. Circumcision isn't even mentioned until Chpt 17. Therefore, Abram knew he was saved without circumcision.
God added this condition later. There is no evidence whatsoever that Abraham knew he could ignore God's command to be circumcised. I don't think he could have. That would have been proof that he really didn't believe and as a result have been declared righteous. For Abraham it would have been impossible to be declared righteous and then turn right around and disobey God's direct command to be circumcised. Whose sermon series on justification by faith did he have to teach him what happened when he believed God in Genesis 15? That's the glory and revelation of the New Covenant, not the old, though we know several people in the OT walked in that eternal truth without knowing the full extent of it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Also, as you quoted, the Scriptures say, "cut off from his people" not "cutoff from the covenant". One refers to social interaction and the other to salvation.
Being cutoff from the people of God is being cutoff from the covenant:
"11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)- 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ (not through the law of circumcision).
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations." (Eph. 2:11-14 paranthetical/ emphasis mine)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
If this was revelation that had been around from the beginning, Paul would not speak of his ministry as representing the knowledge and power of faith that was only now being revealed to the world in the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Instead, Paul would have been preaching circumcision as a requirement for the people of God just as it was taught in the OT with no condition of faith attached.
There are a lot of things that the record of Paul's ministry does not discuss. However, that does not mean he had no an opinion on those things. What is recorded is what was important at the time. I do believe Paul spoke of the knowledge and power of faith that has been revealed through the Spirit of the Creator. The concept of circumcision of the heart was revealed to Paul in Deut 30:6 "The Lord your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live." Also, as I have stated before when we were talking about the sacrifices, the prophets tell us that a contrite heart is more important than sacrifice. So, we see that Abram, Moses and the Prophets knew about salvation by grace through faith. What Paul does is take this great cloud of witnesses, combines their testimonies with those of the Messiah and His disciples and provides us with logical arguments supporting this concept that the Creator has saught to impart to us throughout the ages.
A few select people discovered the grace of God outside and above the condemnation of the law during the OT period. But their obligation was still to fulfill the literal requirements of the law. David confirms this in Psalm 51 after he was held blameless before God for his deeds worthy of death under the law because of his broken and contrite spirit. Afterwhich he says...
"19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices, whole burnt offerings to delight you; then bulls will be offered on your altar."
Even from this example we can see that our NT obligation is quite different than David's even though he experienced the same grace we have. We walk in the fullness of the grace he received yet we are not obligated to the system of animal sacrifice he was obligated to (even if the Temple was here), as it had not yet been rendered obsolete by the manifest work of Christ.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
quote:
Then what things do confirm one's faith? The OT says circumcision and Sabbath keeping were signs of being in covenant with God. Surely you must agree with this. The NT narrows those signs down to a single more specific standard by which we can identify saving faith in a person and nullifies the literal signs given in the OT. Things do change. The present covenant is not the same as the previous covenant.
I don't believe confirmation is a biblical concept. The Creator needs no confirmation, for it is He who imparted the faith by His grace.
It's not for God's benefit, for he knows all things. It's for your benefit, that you might find assurance in the hope you have abandoned all to take hold of by faith. There are several passages that teach this. We heard the message of hope first. By grace we accepted it by faith. Faith in turn plays out actively in the works of a new creation (godly love). The presence of godly love in our lives confirms to us the reality of that which we hope for. That in turn bolsters our hope in God. And the cycle repeats itself, building us up in Christ as God intended.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
...Confirmation before men is futile, as the parable of Lazarus and the rich man shows us. If the Creator grants them faith they believe, if not they don't. We can not be sure. We only have signs as discussed above. What are those signs, there are many, but John tells us:
1Jo 3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
How do we know what it means to love one's brother. John tells us that also.
1Jo 5:2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands.
His commands can't be just to love our brother, that would be circular reasoning. Fortunately, John made clear what "carrying out his commands" means earlier in his letter.
Right. It's to believe, and love your brother. But even love itself is multi-faceted.
To start with, Paul excludes circumcision from 'God's commands' when he talks about 'keeping God's commands', making a clear distinction about what that means.
"19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts." (1 Cor. 7:19)
Obviously, the lawful command to be circumcised is not included in the 'keeping God's commands' that we are exhorted to keep in the NT (Romans 2 has another example). And James helps us understand what 'doing right' means:
"27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27).
Love is actually only one of the fruit of the Spirit (though it's obvious that all the fruit of the Spirit is ultimately an expression of godly love for others). God's commands encompass all of the fruit of the Spirit, but especially the command to love, as the NT repeatedly teaches.
Self-control is also one of the fruit of the Spirit. Some sins don't readily translate into harm to our neighbor, like looking at porn. The connection between keeping oneself pure and considering the well-being of our neighbor aren't always directly connected. This can help us understand the distinction both James and John make about actively loving others through acts of compassion and keeping oneself pure. If 'keeping oneself pure' means going to church only on Saturday's then that's what you must do for conscience sake. But there is other scriptural information to help us know that some OT laws are not what constitutes 'keeping oneself pure' in the New Covenant.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
1 John 2:3-6 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God's love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
It is the example of his character that we walk after.
"...God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil..." (Acts 10:38)
That is what he is remembered for and what distinguished him far and above mere mortals, not what day of the week he went to church on, or what festival he attented. This is what we are to strive for and to imitate in our own lives.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
As you pointed out earlier, the Messiah walked "while the law was in complete authority", though I would never have put it that way. The Creator has always had complete authority. The written word is just a finite illustration of the true word he tells us to obey in verse 5. At the time John wrote this letter, only the Scriptures written before the incarnation of the Messiah(old testiment) were considered by all to be Scripture. The historical accounts of the Messiah and His disciples, and the letters, were still being complied and circulated. Paul's letters derived their authority from the Jerusalem council.
Paul makes the very clear distinction between being under the authority of the law and being under the authority of the Spirit. A distinction you demolish completely as if they are one and the same thing. It's misleading and incorrect to teach that the law and the Spirit are equal. Just another example of undermining the message of the gospel that shines far and above the ministry of the law.
The law is not the gospel. In fact the law veils the gospel. Concentrating on the externals of the law actually veils the infinately more important command to love your neighbor as yourself. Only in the Spirit (not the law) does love take it's number one place in the heart of the individual believer as the preeminent will of God.
_____________________________
"For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." (Romans 14:17,18)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/7/2008 2:42:00 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 937
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Ask Eli. His buffoonary is what caused God to end the 'everlasting' covenant with Levi. This might be a stumbling block to some, but we know the 'everlasting' gets it's fulfillment in the true spiritual fulfillment God intended all along.
I believe what we are seeing now and in the future is YHVH original intent as described in Exodus 19:5-6
in which the whole nation was to be a kingdom of priests and not be confined to just one tribe. Their transgression paved the way for God's original plan for all eternity.
Non-Jews are grafted into Israel (as the case with those at Mount Sinai) and are called "Israel." We are granted citizenship,rights, privelges and an inheritance through the shed blood of Moshiah Yahshua we have access.
The Melchizedec priesthood (which btw was years before the Levitical priesthood see Gen. 14:17-24) was not predicated upon what tribe you are from. When Israel sinned through the golden calf worship and the people of Levi stood on the LORD's side and executed YAH's judgement, God then blessed them exclusively to be priests. The punishment of Eli's iniquity would not "be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever", this is referring I believe to the sacrifice of bulls and goats...but we know that the blood of the sinless Lamb of God is able to take away our sin, their sin and any body sin.
Levi will be priests again...it'll be through the Melchizedec priesthood as well as all those redeemed by the blood of Yahshua. The fact that Levi was set apart exclusively was only temperary until the time of reformation, the bringing in of the renewed covenant. We don't need to be taught by tutors but we shall all be taught of the LORD from the least to the greatest. This is part of the meaning behind the New Covenant.
So, God did end the exclusivity of the Levitical priesthood with the ushering in of the Melchizedek order which included all Israel and those who are grafted in. It's very prophetic that Samuel was able to minister as a Ephrathite or an Ephraimite and served as a priest in the house of the LORD.
This is how I understand that to mean. One of restoration of YAH's originally intended order.
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 10:28:31 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
LBolt;
quote:
Non-Jews are grafted into Israel (as the case with those at Mount Sinai) and are called "Israel." We are granted citizenship,rights, privelges and an inheritance through the shed blood of Moshiah Yahshua we have access.
Wow just think and I thought Israel was the dad of the kids who those tribes where named after. Which one of them was Judah (JEW) who was fortold by his dad that there would be something great coming out of his line of children.
quote:
The Melchizedec priesthood (which btw was years before the Levitical priesthood see Gen. 14:17-24) was not predicated upon what tribe you are from. When Israel sinned through the golden calf worship and the people of Levi stood on the LORD's side and executed YAH's judgement, God then blessed them exclusively to be priests. The punishment of Eli's iniquity would not "be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever", this is referring I believe to the sacrifice of bulls and goats...but we know that the blood of the sinless Lamb of God is able to take away our sin, their sin and any body sin.
Wasn't Moses and Aaron from the trib of Levi or their grandparent was Levi? Then to top it off wasn't Aaron the one who made the golden calf. Course he blamed the unruly crowd for him to sin. But told them to bring their jewlery to him to make it.
The punishment of Eli was that his sons were very, very greedy in the sacrificing department.
quote:
So, God did end the exclusivity of the Levitical priesthood with the ushering in of the Melchizedek order which included all Israel and those who are grafted in. It's very prophetic that Samuel was able to minister as a Ephrathite or an Ephraimite and served as a priest in the house of the LORD.
This is again where I don't get it that you are saying that Israel is grafted in. Please show context.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 12:26:47 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is again where I don't get it
Sorry, couldn't resist. lol.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 12:31:56 PM
|
|
|
LBolt
Posts: 937
Joined: 11/30/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is again where I don't get it that you are saying that Israel is grafted in.
???
Where did I say Israel is grafted in?
I believe it was in the Psalms where it says of Christ that He would be a priest forever after the order of Melchizedec.
Messiah is under the natural lineage of Judah not Levi. My point is this, the priesthood was always God's design for Israel and those who are grafted in to Israel through the blood of Messiah. That why Peter says the we are a "chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation (Greek word is ethnos-race,people)...
Compare this to Exodus 19:5-6 and you see that it was YAH's original intent to make all Israel (Jew and Israel) a kingdom of priests. The failure of the golden calf and Levi's righteous stand cause them (Levi) to walk in the priestly office amongst their brethren. However, through the grace of God and the ushering in of the New Covenant, those that accept Jesus as LORD and Savior and repent of their sins are as Peter said a "royal priesthood" and Christ (our high priest) is after the Melchizedek order, which is not predicated upon what tribe you are from. Hebrews explains why Christ is a better high priest.
Do you understand where I am coming from? It's not all about Levi anymore but all Isreal to include Levi. We are and are being restored to are rightful position as kings and priests unto our God as Revelation says. Non-Jews as well. There was a mixed multitude at Mt. Sinai as there is a mixture of people who have accept Christ as Messiah and are grafted into Israel.
quote:
Then to top it off wasn't Aaron the one who made the golden calf. Course he blamed the unruly crowd for him to sin. But told them to bring their jewlery to him to make it.
1.Aaron repented of His transgression and was restored. The rest chose to not repent and was subsequently judged. It was Levi who executed the LORD's will.
2 Aaron found grace is God's eyes! Grace!!!! Moshe intercede for them all and God accepted His intercession!! Read Exodus 32:26-29, 34:5-7.
That's why I say that there was plenty of grace in the OT!
< Message edited by LBolt -- 10/8/2008 12:55:14 PM >
_____________________________
Wisdom is the principle thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding...she shall give to thine head an ornament of grace..---Proverbs 4:7
www.tatepublishing.com/bookstore/book.php?w=978-1-60604-743-9
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 2:48:29 PM
|
|
|
Lapidoth
Posts: 3557
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: OKLAHOMA
Status: offline
|
Some of the connecting the dots:
Genesis 34:25-30 Simeon and Levi become a reproach to their father and the nation.
Genesis 49:5-7 Not exactly a blessing from Jacob.
But, Exodus 32:26-29 Levi was reconciled to their ultimate position.
quote:
The failure of the golden calf and Levi's righteous stand cause them (Levi) to walk in the priestly office amongst their brethren.
quote:
It was Levi who executed the LORD's will.
_____________________________
Why does He keep quoting Torah? Doesn't He know He's about to abolish it?
http://www.tedpearce.com/Videos/TheForgottenpeople.html
BARUCH HABA BASHEM YAHUAH
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 3:18:46 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2314
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Odeliya
It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and be prideful and self-rightiousness.
It is entirely possible to celebrate Pesach, do circums-n, etc. or do communion and bapism and act in humility in love.
This is what the whole point non lit T camp tries to convey - it is not the physical manner that counts. One can be physical torah laws observant and still be a pagan! I know messianic that are pagans and you probably do , too. I know chistians that are nonbelievers. Physical doesnt determine the spiritual. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.
Blue:
No, I am just explaining why I have a cart and not just a horse. Though, in this case, others have carts also. I'm just told mine is not acceptable because it was constructed in attempt to follow a craftsman's diagram and not just put together on the fly.
By cart you mean your religious traditions, i presume?So your cart is the one done acording to craftsman's diagram and others are the wrongly constructed ones? Oh, my dearest..  There are thousands of denominations, there are catholics of various persuasions, and I yet to see 2 Messianics/Independent messianic-ishly flavored types that agree on the definition of the "cart".
So to say : "My religious traditions are right, and Yours are wrong" is nothing new.
BTW, i and others here would never ,ever say that your's ( BlueT's )way is wrong. If it works for you and makes you a better, more God pleasing Christian, do it!! Your camp seem to be accusing others of having the wrong cart....
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 3:30:04 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2314
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LoyalGypsy
O:
I presume all of us -people who participate in debate at such deep theological level- have read the entire Scripture many times, so posting a verse thinking the other party has never considered it and we thus would prove our point is, for the lack of better word, naive.
LG:
Are we supposed to stop posting verses….because of this suggestion?
 Everything should be done using common sense. In some cases it is necessary in some cases(see the context of my message) it is not helpful to reach the goal.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Keep The Law? - One Stop Thread - 10/8/2008 4:25:31 PM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 1051
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Where did I say Israel is grafted in?
Here what you wrote. And where I got about the grafting part. First thing they were Hebrews at that time. For they were all twelve tribs.
quote:
Non-Jews are grafted into Israel (as the case with those at Mount Sinai) and are called "Israel." We are granted citizenship,rights, privelg | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
